Terrorist actors increasingly mobilise artificial intelligence, human enhancement and other advanced technologies, straining weapon centred legal categories. This paper asks when Artificial Intelligence systems and bio enhanced capabilities qualify as “weapons, means or methods of warfare” under Additional Protocol I and how Article 36 weapons-review duties apply when the instrument is partly human and partly technological. It implications for evaluates the downstream International Humanitarian Law principles of distinction, proportionality and unnecessary suffering; situates enhancement within the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention; and integrates International Human Rights Law concerns over consent, bodily integrity, privacy and data security, including guidance from UNESCO bioethics norms. Turning to accountability, the paper maps International Criminal Law pathways, individual liability, aiding and abetting (Article 25(3)(c)), command responsibility (Article 28) and negligence based theories, while addressing autonomy driven responsibility gaps. It proposes a practical classification approach and a regulatory–criminalisation pathway that recognises certain enhancements and Artificial Intelligence’s use as “weapons,” extends ex ante reviews and dual-use safeguards, and specifies ex post modes of liability for designers, deployers and commanders. The result is a coherent template for governing technology-enabled terrorism across International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and International Criminal Law.